EXCAVATIONS AT ALDBOROUGH (ISURIUM BRIGANTUM) 2018 INTERIM REPORT Rose Ferraby and Martin Millett Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge ALDBOROUGH ROMAN TOWN PROJECT 2018 Contents Summary 2 Introduction 2 Methodology 8 Results 10 Phasing 13 Discussion 19 Acknowledgements 20 Bibliography 21 Appendix 1 22 Appendix 2 22 1 Summary Excavation was carried out in the north east corner of the Roman town of Isurium Brigantum between 3 – 27th March 2018 as part of the Aldborough Roman Town Project (University of Cambridge). A 7m x 3m trench was located in order to investigate a large building. First discovered during the 1924 excavations of Barber et al., the extent of the building was fully revealed as part our magnetometer recent survey, showing it to extend to c. 60m x 8m. The excavation was carried out to investigate the nature and date of the building, its chronological relationship to the town wall, and to test whether there was intra-mural road passing immediately to the north of it. Introduction Following the completion of our survey of the Roman town of Isurium Brigantum (Aldborough) and its immediate environs using magnetometry and Ground Penetrating Radar survey (Ferraby and Millett forthcoming), we have begun a phase of research designed to evaluate the phasing and chronology suggested on the basis of that study. The first stage of this work seeks to provide a better understanding of the origins and early development of the site. Ours strategy has been to re-open past excavation trenches to provide new information with minimum disturbance to the site. Following initial work on a building uncovered in the 1840s in the south-west quarter of the town in 2016 (Ferraby and Millett 2016), we opened a trench on the verge north of St Andrew’s Church in 2017. This re- examined structures first investigated in 1770 and published by Gough’s edition of Camden’s Britannia in 1789. This confirmed the plan of this part of the forum and provided dating evidence for it. It also confirmed the presence of earlier deposits beneath, with structural remains of the Flavian period (Ferraby and Millett 2017). The evidence for this period can be linked with other finds from the northern part of the town, and will provide the basis for a clearer understanding of the nature and development of the site in the first century AD, and its relationship to the fort at Roecliffe. 2 Figure 1: Location of trenches in 2017 and 2018 The third target for this phase of our research was in the north-eastern part of the walled town (see Figure 1). In 1924 Barber, Ridley and Dimmock dug a series of trenches investigating a Roman road to the north of the town, the north gate, and the northern defences (Barber et al. 1925). During this work, they discovered a portion of wall which they called ‘Masonry T’ (see Figure 2): “With the aforementioned intention of discovering the back and of working up to the inner face of the Northern Curtain Wall, trenches were opened further west on the same alignment as Masonry at S. Here again masonry was encountered (Large Building T) being the north west and north east angles of a large building and its containing wall 30’ x 4’ x 3’” (Barber et al. 1925:18) The text of the 1925 report is relatively limited, with no conclusions offered as to its function or date of ‘Masonry T’, simply a description of the structural remains with very little mention of the finds. However, the plans and sections of ‘Masonry T’ are very detailed and carefully drawn: they have also been shown by our excavation to be accurate (see Figure 3). These drawings include detailed notes about aspects of construction, for example that the two N-S walls of Masonry T were not bonded into the E-W wall. The elevation drawings in particular are very detailed, for example the wall courses have been accurately drawn, notes made of materials and possible floor levels, and relative depths to other masonry noted. 3 Figure 2: 1924 plan of interventions around the North gate and town wall (from Barber et al. 1925) Figure 3: 1924 plans and sections of the excavation of ‘Masonry T’ and ‘S’ (from Barber et al. 1925) 4 The 1924 excavations were never fully published, the most complete record being the unpublished 1925 report. However, in 1938 Myres, Steer and Chitty carried out further excavations along the northern stretch of the town wall as part of their work to establish its course and chronology. Their publication in 1959 summarised the results of the 1924 campaign, and plotted Barber et al.’s trenches alongside their own (see Figure 4). Accordingly, we see ‘Masonry’ T represented as ‘Site C’ and ‘Masonry S’ as ‘Site D’. Myres et al. did not however discuss the 1924 excavations very fully, except where they had done work on the same structures (as for instance at the North Gate). Figure 4: Myres et al. plan of the north eastern section of the town wall and ‘Masonry T’ (from Myres et al. 1959:51) Our magnetometer survey over this area revealed that ‘Masonry T’ formed the northern end of a building measuring c. 8m x 60m (see Ferraby and Millett 2012; Ferraby and Millett forthcoming). This was one of 3 such buildings (the two others to the west of it, towards the north gate). These buildings are of particular interest, both because of their scale and plans, which are difficult to parallel, and as they lie at a slight angle to the street grid of the Roman town, the northern limit of which lies just to the south, suggesting that they may have originated in an earlier phase. This hypothesis was tested in our excavation. Parallels with buildings on other sites led to the tentative suggestion that they might be horrea or warehouses. 5 Figure 5: Magnetometer interpretation of NE corner of the town, showing the large building (in red circle) north of the street grid and the location of the 2018 trench (red). (Magnetometer interpretation shows negative features as blue, positive as pink, dipolar as orange). Figure 6: Magnetometer interpretation overlain with georeferenced features from the 1924 plans (bestfit) 6 There were therefore a series of key issues which the excavation would address: 1. the date of the building 2. the date of the earliest activity in the area 3. the relationship of the building to the town wall 4. the function of the building 5. the presence of an inter-vallum road/track running north of the building Our trench – reopening part of the 1924 trench and extending a little beyond it - was located to address these issues. By emptying part of the 1924 trench we hoped to be able to access the earliest deposits which are generally the least accessible, and by extending the trench a little to the north, we planned to assess the sequence externally. A previously unexcavated area inside the building was sampled in order to establish a better understanding of its chronology and use. 7 Methodology The trench (initially 5m x 2m) was de-turfed and dug entirely by hand (see Figure 7). It extended to 7m x 3m once the wall had been located. The spoil from each context was piled separately and metal detected (Figure 8). The trench was backfilled using a mini-digger. The weather conditions were far from ideal, with snow, frost and heavy rain during the first 2 weeks of the excavation. Drawings were made by hand, and features were additionally recorded with GPS. The excavated trench was recorded using photogrammetry by Dominic Powlesland (Landscape Research Centre), georeferenced using targets whose locations had been recorded with the GPS (see Figure 9). Dominic Powlesland also took photographs using a drone in order to create a larger 3D surface model of the NE corner of the town. Finds were collected by hand and environmental samples were collected for flotation. In addition 4 tins were taken from sections to look at the micromorphology of selected deposits. Figure 7: Donna and Gigi Signorelli removing topsoil, looking south. 8 Figure 8: Dave Haldenby and Chris Hannard metal detecting the spoil (looking east) Figure 9: Gigi Signorelli and Dominic Powlesland carry out the photogrammetric survey 9 Results The trench was located to overlay NE corner of ‘Masonry T’ based on the best fit from the georeferenced 1924 plans and our magnetometer survey plot. In the event, our trench located the E-W wall (context 5), but narrowly missed the eastern N-S wall, which must have lain c 0.3m behind the section. The 1924 plans proved to be very precise and detailed, each feature accurately planned and depths correctly recorded. A nice detail included discovering a pile of loose sandstone blocks on top of the wall which had been piled there during their excavation, and which could be seen on one of the photographs (see Figure 10). Their sondage to investigate the lower deposits was also re-excavated, and the floor they recorded could be matched by exact stones. Emptying the 1924 backfill (contexts 3 and 10) we found large quantities of bone and pottery which was obviously not systematically kept at the time. Figure 10: Left, a 1924 photograph of the trench with Masonry T (looking NW), and right, photograph from 2018 (looking N). The nearest section of wall in the 1924 one is shown in ours, with the stones still piled on top. After the 1924 trench fill had been removed, a sample area of the remaining stratigraphy from inside the building was excavated down to the level of the surviving floor make-up.